dd 4.10 ruining weekends/days out/hols with behaviour.

[familyfun]

how do you punish/prevent bad behaviour without punishing whole family.

dd is annoying for the want of a better word, she purposefully winds people up for a reaction.

she calls her sister over, then snatches her toy or pushes her away. she hides her teddys high up. she chases her knowing she will crash and hurt herself.

she climbs on the back of the settee, stands on sisters potty, blocks doorframe so sister cant get passed.

i tell her not to do things and explain why. she agrees and carries on doing the same things over and over.

at dinner she calls her sister and then taps her own head so sister taps her head while holding yoghurt and gets covered.

i am fed up of saying dd1 stop this stop that. outside we have no fun as dd1 wont stop doing things she knows are wrong.

worst time is weekends/day trips, i can only presume she gets overexcited, but when i say come and get your hair done she runs off and hides under the table and then she wont get dressed and then she wont put her shoes on so by the time we go out we have all shouted at her or dp has picked her up and moved her to where he wants her to put her shoes on and dd1 is crying and she screams and screams like a tantrumming toddler. dd2 cries and backs away from her. if we say ok we wont go out then we all suffer.

we have tried ignoring this as we dont want to nag and shout, if you ignore dd tapping the tabel she will sit there indefinitely doing it just for the reaction. reward chards dont work as she knows what she should do and doesnt do it on purpose for attention.

at school she is good, people always comment on how sensible she is and grown up and well bahved and generally when out she is (apart from asking for everything in shope) its just in the house for us and sometimes her grandparents that she is like this.

dd has time at the park, swimming as a family most weeks, reading time to us and we read to her, we play games, i help with homework, so gets attention.

where are we going wrong?

I think more new mums watch TV than read books.

I think there are an awful lot of parents that a persuaded to alter their parenting to accomodate TV programmes and associated "help" books.

I think new mums are an especially vulnerable group in todays society who are easily lead into spending money time and effort on fad ideas that do nothing other than make them feel guilty and tunnel-vision them.

"listen and Empathise" - "sit with them and cuddle them".

Ok - so OP's girl whacks sibling.

Parent should what - sit with and calmly explain don't hit your sister, (no consequence because child must not be punished) child might get upset, so sit with them ummming yes I'd be upset if I was told off too type of empathy, hug them if they cry - really really ????????

And when child looking puzzeled says "Mum why aren't you telling me off?"

We smile and stroke their hair and say,
"I'm loving you unconditionally, all that you are and all that you will be is a shinning beacon of your inner lovliness that must not be tamed or contrained in any way my angel, fly free my spirited one - and if you really don't mind and if its' not too much for you and I know your brain is not fully developed and wont be until your at least 21, but please dear if you would be so kind do use your intrinsic purity and kindess to remove your foot from my face".

That self-development site you linked to, Rosemary, has ads for $3 readings from psychics. It's as commercial & faddy as anything else!

Familyfun: imho, & imhe:
I have one child who is a pest to the whole family, including the other 3 DC.
I feel like I've run the gamut of techniques, including zero tolerance (my instincts), showing my anger (waste of time, made things worse), & several other unsuccessful strategies.

What you describe sounds like pure attention seeking.
What works for me is as much focused attention on the child as possible, and especially when child is otherwise behaving well. Really listen & engage. It's so easy to get caught up with chores & the rest of life, especially when they are behaving peacefully. When child is difficult, don't get angry, it doesn't help. I would plan for some outings without the difficult child when they are being impossible. Do quiet things at home with them instead.

At least your child behaves well for others; mine is a handful wherever he goes.

I don't think Kohn is an attachment parenting type either (and he definitely has kids!). Kohn also says that no-one can parent completely 'unconditionally', you have to find you own way through, it's more about making you aware of the unintended effects certain types of discipline can have on the child.

Example: my 3yo DD hits 1yo DS, then I make sure DS is alright and happy - if DD wants attention I tell her she has to wait til I have made sure DS is okay - then I reinforce to DD that we don't hit people. And why don't we hit people? (get her to explain, she usually say it hurts, makes them sad, whatever) So why did you hit DS? (sometimes he did something, sometimes she just wanted to, sometimes it is a 'I don't know', in which case I tell her if she wants to hit something to go and hit Teddy or a cushion as Teddy's not a person. If she's cross with DS she must use her words not her hands.) If she cries, I will hug her if she asks for it, or I'll ask her why she's crying. "because you shouted at me/I want to hurt DS" then it's either "well, why did I shout at you?" or "You can't hit DS, what can you do instead?".... So it's not punishing so much as trying to figure it out with her and get her to try and recognise and manage her own feelings and behaviour, and develop age-appropriate perspective taking. That's my take though, I'm not saying that is an approved Unconditional Parenting approach. The book is very light on practical applications.

What I took from Kohn is to think carefully about punishment as when you create a punishment, you can actually diminish the 'learning'. The punishment becomes what the child focuses on, rather than what they did. If you've ever been told "go to your room and think about what you've done", you'll probably have found you sat there and mostly thought about how unfair it was and how your parents were mean and not actually thought about what you did... The punishment becomes an 'external' deterrent, you try to behave in a way that avoids punishment but that doesn't reinforce the 'internal' learning about why you shouldn't do that behaviour. I.e. you don't do the behaviour because if you do you get punished - it isn't necessarily that you don't do the behaviour because you think (internally) it's wrong.

From my own crib notes on the book - "Even when kids do cruel things, the goal is not to make them feel bad. Goal is to influence how they think and feel and become kind of person who wouldn?t want to be cruel."

The problem with a behaviourist approach is it treats the external symptoms of whatever's bothering the child, but not the internal reasons behind why the child is playing up.

Rosemary -- Tarullo et als article on frontal lobe development and childhood is interesting but it pretty much counters everything that you have suggested here. It does NOT suggest you leave a child alone in order for their brain to develop, nor does it suggest their brain does not develop if you support them intheir emotional upsets. What it does say is that sensitive parenting that supports autonomy will get independent children. Sensitive parenting. Or do you think "supporting autonomy" means time outs, and leaving a child alone when they are upset? What is sensitive about this?
Or perhaps you think "intrusive" mothers that are referred to who help their child get a toy are the same as attached parents? Sorry, you are really getting it very mixed up if you think "intrusive mothers" are the same as attached and that getting a toy for a child is the same as leaving them alone when they are upset -- and if you think "positive guidance" is the same as time outs and rejection of emotions. Or if you are not mixing it up then you are twisting the words of the authors to suit your own ideas.

the goal is not to make the child feel bad when they do cruel things ?

No no no - surely thae goal is to make them feel so bad they don't do it again.

Most children doing cruel things (above the age of 2-3) know exactly what they are doing is wrong and cruel, they do it because they think they can get away with it.

Anyway tangenting off on parenting styles, sorry.

OP - I still say I think it is sibling rivalry at the root of it.

"at dinner she calls her sister and then taps her own head so sister taps her head while holding yoghurt and gets covered" = DD did similar with DS, have you pointed out to your DD that 'look, DD2 is copying her big sister! But now we have to clean her up. You have to be very careful what you teach her, don't you. Why don't we find you something else you can show DD2 how to do?" This sort of thing worked for us.

Maya - as per earlier I choose not to leave children alone, personally I also choose not to do time-outs either "supporting autonomy " for me doesn't mean adult interference.

Or rather than "something else" you could say "something better/useful", or some other way of conveying that that wasn't a good thing to show DD2.

And yes, Rosemary, you can do this. Example. My DS1 whacked DS2. I removed DS1 from the situation and made sure DS2 was ok. Then went to DS1 - he was screaming and protesting that he had been removed. I listened and explained why I dislike what he did and why he should not do it. He screamed. I sat near him and listened, and then suggested he can sit on my lap if he wants (and no, such fluff that you are writing should never be said to a child. Do not mock unless you understand). After a bit more of screaming he came and sat on my lap, then hugged me, teary eyed, went voluntarily to his little brother and hugged him. He has not done anything like that since.

I am not saying it is a miracle cure. Well, it has been for me. There are so many less upsets and so much more willingness to accept the limits that come with everyday life with children that it has made me want to share this approach with more people. WHich is why i write here. It interferes with my work, I earn nothing for it and do not ever intend to. Why would I do it in your opinion then? Perhaps people in the positive parenting camp wish their children have peers who have the same level of emotional intelligence when they grow up, perhaps they wish there are less people who have been parented by punishment and withdrawal of love? I certainly do, and I do not care to make a penny out of it.

Mayama and Rosemary - I use elements of what you both advocate. I do
agree that dd needs to learn self control and I praise her when she's managed to calm herself down independently. But when she's whipped herself up into a frenzy of emotion and can't find her way out I hold her close. You can feel the tension leaving her then. She will usually then of her own accord bring up what she's done wrong and apologise.

If you want to read "supporting autonomy" the way you have in your previous posts it is simply your way of understanding it. It has nothing to do with any evidence. "In another study, when mothers (a) were sensitive and responsive
with their 1-year-old infants, (b) talked about emotions and other mental states, and (c) were supportive while also encouraging independence, the infants went on to do better on attention and self-control tasks 6 to
12 months later (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, in press)." How can you suggest that sensitive and responsive, talking about emotions can equal what you have described?

Maya - that was a good explaination for me, thank you.

I'm wondering though, I think I could try it, but how do you stop yourself getting totally fed-up with the screaming /whinging ? I can see that if you do it once and it works then that would be OK but really long-term would just do my head in.

"surely thae goal is to make them feel so bad they don't do it again" - no, the goal is to make them understand what they do makes others feel bad, and to make that the reason they don't do it again.

"Most children doing cruel things (above the age of 2-3) know exactly what they are doing is wrong and cruel, they do it because they think they can get away with it." But if you are punishing kids with arbitrary methods, that to them appears cruel and as their parents get away with it, why can't they... What they learn from what we do isn't always what we're trying to teach them, which is another point from the book.

I would say most kids doing cruel things under the age of 4ish do it to see what happens and explore their influence on the world and others around them - "if I hit DS on the head with this brick, what happens - ooh, look, he's crying, and I made that happen!" Call it boundary testing or power tripping if you will. So the aim there is to get them to appreciate that yes, they have the power to be cruel and inflict cruelty but to choose not to use that power. I don't think they are cruel "for the sake of it" at that age, it's more impulsive, experimental. The aim is to get them not to act on those impulses, at the sort of age the OP is talking about, in my view.

Oh come on Mighty - 4 year old hits another with a brick and doesn't get ANY consequence - I'm sure that's not what you mean - what would happen next ?

OP, how much one on one time does your 'troublesome ' DD get with your or your DH. I find when one of my (4) kids becomes a 'problem' that a bit of 121 time with them where they get All The Attention helps a lot!

That I suppose is the crunch point of different parentning, I could be encouraged to more positive, firendly, explaining type parenting in small bits of poor behaviour, ( and thus raise happier, better emotionally equiped children) but larger acts of boundary testing will get an angry / heres the consequnces response from me (at the moment).

I also encourage my children to be independent, and i do not feel the feelings with them. I simply am available and listen to them. If I did not, it would send the signal feelings are not ok. I'd say tantrums go away NOT because we time-out, punish for them or, reward for not having them- They go away as children develop. Humans are a highly intelligent species and they do not develop in response to simple reward-punish methods. They evolve intellectually figuring out what is socially acceptable by observing what is going on around them, not as a response to reward-punishment. And if on this journey you have rejected their feelings they figure out it is not ok to express emotions. Hence many emotional problems people have. Or take mens' considerably lower life expectancy (even when accidents etc are removed) - it may well have to do with repression of emotions that is expected more of men than of women. There might even be evidence supporting this, and I will post it here should I come across it.
I hope familyfun has not completely switched off disappointed that her problem has been hijacked by me and some other posters for their argument... My apologies. It was just such an intersting discussion, albeit a bit heated....

"feel the feelings for them", rather than with.

Rosemary - I used to think the same. It did my head in. But I no longer take the responsibility for it. That really helps. I know they have to feel their feelings, and that I do not need to "fix that broken cookie" for them. I guess I could just leave it at that and walk away, but to diminish such behaviour and get more cooperative children, listening and accepting their protests does work IME (and my many acquaintances testify the same). So instead of taking the responsibiiity to mend the cookie, for stopping the crying, I listen, cuddle, and accept. Tears help relieving stress, so - they emerge from it (if they cry) as emotionally relieved. CHildren left to scream alone often do not cry. My DS1 is yet to relearn crying and he is still a very tense personality. But each time he has managed to cry with me supporting him, he has come closer to me.

Yes, this approach does not create totally compliant children. BUT -- do we want them to be? I certainly hope that my DSs growing up being able to disagree and argue their case will help them through adolescence and adulthood with less problems. Also I would rather see them grow up emotionally secure as well as able to empathise. If you do not empathise with them, however, they cannot grow up as people who understand others' point of view.

Obviously the thread has become sidetracked with people who have different approaches.

Can I just quote a family friend who is a child psychotherapist. I asked her informally for some help with DD2 when she was about 4. She said "All behaviour is for a reason".

Your DD1 is angry about something (I suspect sibling rivalry).

Try reading Siblings Without Rivalry by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.

Exactly, Handmade - very well put. And further, when we ignore the messages our children are sending (by withdrawing etc), we will never learn what the reason was and we will also undermine that valuable connection with the child to understand their messages, now as well as in the future. Of course it does not mean you have to let them do anything. But apart from setting the limits and removing them from situations where they could harm anyone, we need to teach them we listen.

'All Behaviour Is For A Reason' is a brilliant philosophy but I'd like to add 'And The Reason Isn't Usually Just To Piss You Off'.
Sometimes they like a reaction, but IME usually there is something else.

Kohn also says that no-one can parent completely 'unconditionally', you have to find you own way through

really? where does he say that? Can you supply a quote?